BENGALURU: Senior advocate C V Nagesh on Thursday argued before the special court that Section 364(A), which was introduced as an amendment to IPC Section 364, with an intention to punish dreaded terrorists, was invoked against JDS MLA H D Revanna. The amendment was made after the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to Afghanistan’s Kandahar in 1999, for the release of three terrorists.
Nagesh made this submission to narrate the severity of the offence punishable under Section 364(A), along with Sec 365 invoked against accused Revanna, before Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, Special Court to try criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs, during Revanna’s bail hearing. The accused is facing charges of kidnapping a survivor of sexual assault, allegedly involving his son, Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna.
Submitting that he has no objection, in principle, to arguments by any number of special public prosecutors (SPPs), the law permits appointment of only one SPP, Nagesh argued that registration of the crime is itself bad in law, since the essential ingredients to attract the offences invoked do not exist. Moreover, Section 364(A) is invoked against terrorists who hold governments hostage for ransom, he argued.
Ridiculing the reasons given by SIT in its remand application seeking custody of the accused, Nagesh argued that the victim had been brought, stating that she was called by “Revanna Sahebru”. It does not constitute two components -- compulsion of force and deceit -- to attract charges of abduction against Revanna, who has been dragged into it for political reasons, that too when Lok Sabha elections are on. The crime was registered four days after the alleged kidnap, which is impermissible in law, he said and prayed to court to grant bail.
Additional SPP Jayna Kothari argued that the accused had abducted the victim to cover up multiple sexual assaults by his son, who is still absconding. Also, the victim disclosed the sexual assault in her statement, and it is a clear case of abduction.
Many victims have approached the helpline set up by the SIT, and the severity of punishment is high if the case is proven. There is threat to the victim, witnesses and apprehension of tampering with evidence since the accused is influential. There is a prima facie case against him, she argued, before the hearing was adjourned to Monday.